The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...

congruent’ to sets that seem to originate in totally different projects. In 9 out of the 11
projects, the curves appear to reflect very different experiences within the team. In
Figure 1, for example, it can be seen that the student we have called Max has a curve
with many turns, reflecting shifting spirits throughout the project. Ellis’ mood seems to
have been fairly stable and positive. It can be seen from the curves that Ellis was the
only team member who had a good time in the period just before the midterm report
delivery (the timeline event by number 9). Sean and Max experienced a steep upturn in
connection with the delivery. Finlay took longer to reach above-average spirits.
We have numbered the points along Max’ explanation curve where he accounted for the
up- or downturns. To illustrate the richness of an explanation of an individual curve, we
provide Max’ explanation at the points 10, 11 and 12 (Figure 1):
10) ”Then there was a lot of frustration because of the team member who disappeared, and I
personally got completely p** off [..] that we could not get in touch and he didn’t gave a damn.
[…] We approached deadline, I felt that I was nagging like crazy and was rather stressed
because I feared we would not reach our goal with all that needed to get finished ”. 11) ”Then
we approached delivery and then I saw that this was going to go really well, and up went my
spirits.”. 12) ”Spirit-wise I ended up approximately on Finlay’s level. We were rather happy
when we had delivered.”
Excerpt 1: A part of Max’ explanation of his curve. Team P.
From this excerpt it can be noted that Max addresses his personal feelings about the
challenges of organizing the project, in this case the issue of a member who quit the project
without informing the team. Max also accounts for his own behavior at the time: he was
project manager (not formally, but in practice) and pushed the other team members towards
their deadline – which he perceived as ‘nagging’ and very stressful. He explains how the
subsequent success of the project work affected him, comparing his final level of spirit with
that of another team member. He also summarizes the team’s feeling at the end of the project.
4.2. Making a shared timeline is more than a mere adding of individual timelines
The construction of the shared timeline in task 3 often leads to discussion of details,
significance, sequence and timing. When an event occurred in more than one timeline,
discussion of the naming of the event often revealed discrepancies in the interpretation
of elements of the project process. In many teams, events that had not emerged in task 2
(drawing individual timelines) turned up in task 3. These new events might be given as
reasons for, or consequences of, other events.
The most important finding from the shared timeline construction is that the
facilitated ‘return to experience’ results in a shared representation different from the
sum of individual timelines. Some events might be added or canceled, others renamed.
In any case participants build common ground for reflection in the following tasks.
4.3. The satisfaction curves give new insights about the project
We have observed that the students glance at each other’s curves with interest in task
4. Visible differences between curves appear to trigger puzzlement and amusement. In
task 5, curve explanations in some cases trigger team members’ there-and-then response
and reflection. In team Q, Magda explains a low part of her curve. She says she had
been depressed about being assigned to a project using technology she already knew: “it
was only project writing and project work that I learned anything about.” Peter supports
and elaborates on Magda’s account, suggesting that it might be hard to be the only team
89
Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on February 5, 2010 at 09:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
167